IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the party with the best evidence, and failure to produce such evidence can lead to adverse inferences.

JUDGMENT :

C. Jayachandran, J.

The facts and events to be discussed in this appeal will unfurl the saga of the respondents/plaintiffs, who have been deprived of their valuable property by virtue of an acquisition as early as on 1978. The issue involved in the suit, from which this appeal arose, was minimal to the effect whether a reference in terms of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1961, was in fact made by the respondents herein, a fact finding mission, pure and simple. Seeking a relief in this regard, the respondents have also approached this Court earlier in O.P.No.6311/1990. Relying upon the observations in Ext.A7 judgment rendered in the said Original Petition, as also, other circumstances, the learned Sub Judge, in the impugned judgment found, on the yardstick of preponderance of probability, that an application for reference under Section 20 was in fact preferred. Accordingly, the impugned judgment directed the defendants to refer the matter for consideration of the question of enhanced compensation in respect of the award concerned. An apparently innocuous direction contained in the impugned judgment was not relished by the Government, resulting in the filing of the instant appeal. The saddest part is that the appeal was pending before this Court from 1998 onwards. There was no effort from any quarter to bring up the matter and to get the same disposed of. When this Court, in its venture to identify and dispose of matters which are 25 plus years old, this appeal surfaced. When this was taken up for consideration, it was submitted by the appellant that, some of the respondents are not served even now. This Court chose to hear the appellant, as also, the contesting respondents, who have entered appearance on the merits of the matter and decided to complete the service, only if an interference in the impugned judgment is warranted. Having heard the Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant/State and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, this Court is of the opinion that, there is no scope for any interference, whatsoever, to the impugned judgment, wherefore, this Court is not choosing to wait for completion of service to dispose of this matter.

2. Heard Sri.Hanil Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) for the petitioners, Sri. Arun Krishna Dhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 10, 14, 16, 20 to 24 and Sri.Gopalakrishanan Nair, learned counsel for respondents no.2, 5, 6, 18 & 19.

3. With this prelude, this Court will address specifically the issues involved in this appeal. Two items of properties, which belonged to a tharavadu of which the respondents are members, were acquired in the year 1978 for the purposes of the Calicut Drainage Scheme. The first item of property was having an extent of 2.80 acres in Re- survey No.65/2 and the second, an extent of 1.10 acres in Re-survey No.65/7. In respect of the first item, award no.20/1978 was passed and in respect of the second, award no.26/1978 was passed. There is no controversy with respect to an application for reference having been preferred by the respondents in respect of the second item governed by award no.26/1978. The reference was answered and the respondents (owners of the property) were given enhancement in accordance with law. However, the specific issue arose with respect to the factum of an application for reference, preferred at the instance of the respondents in respect of the first item, governed by award no.20/1978, such fact being emphatically denied by the appellant/State. According to the appellants, no such application for reference was preferred in terms of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1961, by the respondents in respect of the first item covered by award no.26/1978.

4. An Original Petition was preferred before this Court by the respondents herein, as O.P.No.6311/1990, seeking a mandamus commanding the State to refer the claim made by them against award no.20/1978. After considering the matter at s